Do calories count or not?
 

I'm interested in the differences among the various low-carb approaches. Here's one that intrigues me. Diana Schwarzbein (TSP) says even when trying to lose weight, do not worry about calories; eat (good) fat and protein until you are comfortably satisfied; give quantity no thought. Your body will naturally limit consumption of fat anyway.

But Michael and Mary Eades (PPLP) say to watch fat calories if you are are not losing weight (and wish to). Only on maintenance can you ignore calories from fat and protein.

This is a direct conflict. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Thanks.

Sheldon

The problem I see with eating until "comfortably satisfied" is some don't feel satisfied until they have eaten far more than they need, so they don't lose.

But Schwarzbein says this does not happen with fat and protein, although it does with carbs. This is the issue I am raising. She explains the biochemistry of this effect, generally, that the brain gets the message early in the process that it has had enough.

Sheldon

Hi Sheldon,

I guess the short answer is yes, they do.

The longer answer is...depends on your plan.

Atkins says not to count calories, just carbs and to eat until you are full, not stuffed. Difficult to assess after a long time of carb addiction where (this!) one has/had been used to stuffing one's face with starches.

Sugar Busters say not to count anything, just select from low GI carbs and don't overfill your plate.

But surprisingly, the big problem we often find on this forum, is that people tend to undereat. Coming off low fat/low cal diets, their caloric intake can be as little as 800 cal (for body weights of 200 lbs at times) and their metabolisms come to a screaming halt. This is partly encouraged by the ketotic loss of appetite, and it can be very difficult to encourage folk to understand that they CAN lose weight by eating more.

This has caused much controversy here, with our suggestions of eating between 10-12 times bodyweight being roundly criticized at times.

Personally, I found while I was eating 13-14x my bodyweight, I was unable to lose. Under 10x and I'm just too hungry. If I keep between the "magic" 10-12x I have success.
I should point out that I don't set out to count calories; it is a Fitday by product of my carb counting.

Some folk do just fine without ever counting anything - others of us need to keep track.

Is that some sort of answer? :)

Cheers.

:rose:Rosebud:rose:

Not everyone has the same reaction to their "full" messages. I would tend to agree with Quilter. Some people do not get the message they are full until it is way over what they needed to eat. Depends on the individual's system and how messed up it is.

I don't think biochemistry or not you can group everyone in the same box. Making a blanket statement of what EVERYONE is suppose to experience is far different than real life.

Thanks, Rosebud and agonycat. But let me suggest that it can't really depend on the plan. No plan is good if it conflicts with our biochemistry. We can't have the tail wagging the dog. I fully accept there are individual differences. And I also accept that people may not be tuned in to their brain's signal that they've had enough. They have to work on that.

Having said that, there is nevertheless a basic biochemistry common to all human beings, since, well, we're all human beings with the same long evolution. After all, we believe that the carb-sugar-insulin theory is applicable to all people, no? What do we tell skeptics who come here and insist that low-carbing isn't right for everyone? The variables can't swing that wildly, can they?

Moreover, I thought our basic outlook is that in the absence of insulin, calories from fat cannot get stored as body fat. So how can one get fat or fail to lose fat by eating fat and low-carb? (I'm assuming a regular exercise program, of course.)

So my question remains: if low-carbers wishing to lose weight watch for the signals that they are satisfied, do they need to worry about calories? Who's right, Schwarzbein or the Eadeses?

Sheldon

P.S.: I am not trying to be provocative. It just sounds that way. I'm searching for the answer and I know this forum will help.

I think AC nailed it on the head, here. So many of us hit LC after years of yoyo low fat dieting and our metabolisms can be pretty badly damaged.

Atkins (I haven't read Schwarzbein - yet) also agrees that eating high fat and low carb gives us a metabolic advantage so that in the absence of insulin, fat cannot be stored as fat.

But there is a caveat. If you eat too darn much of it, some of it will inevitably be stored as fat.

When I started, I figured I could eat just whatever I liked, when I liked. Didn't work that way. In fact, Dr A and SB (my latest read) both say to restrict to a point.

Is that any help?

Roz

Where does Schwarzbein say this? On p. 124, she has a heading, "You Can Overeat Carbohydrates, but You Cannot Overeat Proteins and Good Fats." She goes on to explain the biochemistry, summing up, "If you ignore the feeling [the nausea from eating too much fat/protein] and you keep eating, you will either become further nauseated or vomit."

Then on p. 251, she writes, "Eat fat with every meal. Listen to your body. It knows its fat-intake limits. Do not worry about fat grams; your body takes care of this through the feedback mechanism of satiety. If you eat too much fat, you will get stick to your stomach and possibly even vomit. You should eat as many healthy fats as you want, varying your selections."

Sheldon

Hi mate,

SB=Sugar Busters. As I said in my last post:


Roz

I misunderstood the "SB."

Can you show me where Atkins says to restrict fat?

Sheldon

I'm losing track of just what exactly you mean here, Sheldon.

As I explained earlier, Dr A does not give us a licence to gorge ourselves. Some folk can eat enormous amounts of protein and fat - they won't lose weight!
That's why he says to eat until you are full, but not stuffed.

That's also why Sugar Busters says to not overfill your plate and not go back for seconds.

Roz

Let's get back to the beginning. My topic was "Do calories count or not?" Atkins and Schwarzbein say no. The Eadeses say yes, if you can't lose weight. They are in direct conflict. I'm not talking about gorging. I'm asking if a weight-loss stall can be explained by the consumption of too many calories through fat/protein. We have a disagreement among the authors and I'm trying to sort it out.

Thanks. :)

Sheldon

My last reply here. :p
Atkins does not say that calories do not count. He makes a point of saying not to overeat.

As it's after 2AM here, I'm off to bed. G'night!

Roz

Can I put in my non-medical 2 cents?
 

When doing Atkins in my 20's, I ate all of the protein I wanted and lost 40 pounds. After not sticking to the WOL and gaining, I went back to the Atkins WOL in February of this year and gained. I lowered my calories from 1200 to 1000 to finally 800 before seeing a loss. I have now finally lost 5 pounds in the past week (I was 229).

Sorry to interrupt, I just felt like sharing my experience.

My doctor says my 30 year old body does not need the calories my 20-something body did.

Thank you for listening/reading,
Julie

P. 73 of Atkins: "Count carbs, not calories." He also disparages what he calls the "'calorie-is-a-calorie' mind set."

Sheldon